RedHat 7.3 is an almost brainless install. Very fast and very easy. The only problem is if you have hardware not supported by Linux. With RedHat 7.2 it was my Turtle Beach soundcard that didn't work. With RedHat7.3 it's my GeForce4 Ti 4400 that is not supported. X won't even start. It just dies.
At this point Linux loses big time to Windows. Windows can boot to damned near any VGA compatible video card and let you install whatever drivers you need to get your video working. No dinking around with odd.rc files hidden in obscure directories or any of that sillyness.
But it's not being edited between the source and you, which you would kknow if you read the article. What they are doing is very "opt-in", you have to take your video and have it edited. It's not copies being sold at Walmart.
And a responcible parent teaches their children the truth about the world in a manner that best helps the child and best fits within the moral and cultural bounds of the parents.
And there is no problem with this, either, as far as I am concerned. You, and everyone else in the club, know that you are getting a "cleaned" copy of the film.
I didn't think so. If you had you would have read that they are not selling altered versions at Walmart. In order to get an altered version you have to buy a regular version and have it altered.
But what people do to their own copies of films/books/records/whatever is their own business! If I want to remove all scenes of Legolas from my copy of LOtR:FOtR (because my wife thinks he's hot and that threatens my tiny, fragile ego) then that is my business.
But, let's look at the matter of being "good parents". These people ARE being good parents. They are sheilding their children from things they find offensive. The KEY here is what they find offensive. One poster here already said that there are offensive (to him) words in "Harry Potter" (I did not know "bogie" was offensive) and does not want his kids exposed to them. Now I can't find one word in "Harry Potter" that I find offensive and I can't find anything in that movie I'd want to protect a kid from. Thing is, "Harry Potter" IS a children's movie.
So, in order to get your sanitized version of "Where The Boys Aren't #27" or "Fisting Firemen #10" you need to go out and buy a regular copy and then have it edited. And the problem here is what? If these companies bought one copy, edited it and then sold copies as original purchases I'd have an issue with it. But making it possible for the ultra-squeemish to enjoy sanitized versions of their favorite films isn't a problem in my book. It's no different, IMHO, than taking a marker and blotting out the words you find offensive in your copy of "Huckleberry Finn".
Sanatize? No. But a parent should not have to worry about objectional content coming in, unwanted and unrequested, into their children's email. It's not like these kids went surfing to hotsloppysluts.com, they just opened their email.
Yes, parents SHOULD supervise their kids surfing habbits, but they shiouldn't have to moniter their email as well! 9
And shit, I don't want ads for craptastic porn stolen from giffgirls, or penis enlargers, or hot sloppy russian sluts and all other sorts of fouls crap in my mailbox! If I want buy a spleen enlarger I'll go searching for one!
You have the right to say what you will, save for screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, discussing means of killing the President, talking about hijacking an airplane while in an airport, publishing child pornography, etc... BUT I have the right to NOT listen to you. I have the right to ignore you if I don't like what you are saying. And I will use whatever tools I have to enforce that right legally.
It doesn't matter if he profitted from DeCSS or not. That is completely irrelevent in copyright law. The point is whether or not he violated any copyrights or otherwise violated the DMCA (which is a violation of our basic rights, but that's another argument). Making no money will not make him less guilty than making billions of dollars.
Can you read your iPAQ when the battery is dead? I can't. And as good as my iPAQ is for some things, that screen is just too damned small for reading.
I much prefer books. You can annotate the hell out of them. Books don't crash. Books don't have issues with "alternate" operating systems. Books aren't subject to the whims of some funky piece of software that might just decide to stop working.
And most importantly, when was the last time you replaced the missing leg on that old couch with an iPAQ?
And they make music to pay the bills and put food on the table. If someone chooses to make a living making a product or doing a service, they have every right to expect payment for that product (physical or not) or service.
It's great that you gove your work away. Obviously you don't feed yourself with it.
I've been a Nielson houshold three years running. What have they found? That I watch an average of five hours oif TV a week, and that my wife watches about an hour or so more a week. Even though the point of the Nielson system is to set advertising rates, it's nice to know that I did my part in trying to keep Reboot! on the air.
Considering that ripping a CD for personal use is not a copyright violation (at least not yet), your argument is without merrit. We're not talking about biological weapons or other tools that have only one possible application here. If CDeX ripped your CD and automaticall uploaded it all to a central music depository you MIGHT have an argument.
Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. I use it to ripp my CDs onto my (internal LAN) server so I can listen to the CDs I bought (and still have posession thereof) without hauling my CD collection all over the house. I have never given away a single song I ever ripped.
And just because a tool CAN be used to violate a law, does not make it a violation to have or use it. I can use a crowbar to break into your house, or even to kill you with. Does that make me owning a crowbar illegal? What if I use my crowbar only for legal purposes - ripping out the boards in my house, or prying rocks loose? Is it still illegal?
Get a grip, son. It's the manner in which the tool is used, not the tool itself that makes it a violation of the law or not (unless some asshat DMCAesque law says otherwise).
UI used to run The Wage of Sim, a "The Sims" page that consumed 2.8GB of bandwidth every day. It cost me $400.00 a month to host. I tried to get banner ads on my site. No dice. You'd think with a site getting several thousand unique visitors a day I might get some interest. Nope. No one outside of the porn industry wanted to touch me for some reason. And I was not willing to run porn ads. I tried donations, but I never got more than $100.00 in any particular month, ever.
Rather than submit to porn or popups, I closed my site. It was a nice hobby while it lasted, and I'm not happy that I had to close the site.
There are times you have to ask yourself if the pain of doing something is worth the return.
Considering how much AOL charges, it amazes me that they need pop-up/pop-under ad revenue to stay afloat. Like all non-profitable business ventures, they should die.
Bullshit. Where is the data that pop-ups work? The best they do is create false positive page views by loading pages you didn't request. I have never purchased ANYTHING from a popup, nor ever visited a site pointed my way via a pop-up, and neither do most people.
Pop-ups, like SPAM, are evil and do little more than piss people off.
Slashdot Mirror
RedHat 7.3 is an almost brainless install. Very fast and very easy. The only problem is if you have hardware not supported by Linux. With RedHat 7.2 it was my Turtle Beach soundcard that didn't work. With RedHat7.3 it's my GeForce4 Ti 4400 that is not supported. X won't even start. It just dies.
.rc files hidden in obscure directories or any of that sillyness.
At this point Linux loses big time to Windows. Windows can boot to damned near any VGA compatible video card and let you install whatever drivers you need to get your video working. No dinking around with odd
But it's not being edited between the source and you, which you would kknow if you read the article. What they are doing is very "opt-in", you have to take your video and have it edited. It's not copies being sold at Walmart.
And a responcible parent teaches their children the truth about the world in a manner that best helps the child and best fits within the moral and cultural bounds of the parents.
And there is no problem with this, either, as far as I am concerned. You, and everyone else in the club, know that you are getting a "cleaned" copy of the film.
I didn't think so. If you had you would have read that they are not selling altered versions at Walmart. In order to get an altered version you have to buy a regular version and have it altered.
But what people do to their own copies of films/books/records/whatever is their own business! If I want to remove all scenes of Legolas from my copy of LOtR:FOtR (because my wife thinks he's hot and that threatens my tiny, fragile ego) then that is my business.
But, let's look at the matter of being "good parents". These people ARE being good parents. They are sheilding their children from things they find offensive. The KEY here is what they find offensive. One poster here already said that there are offensive (to him) words in "Harry Potter" (I did not know "bogie" was offensive) and does not want his kids exposed to them. Now I can't find one word in "Harry Potter" that I find offensive and I can't find anything in that movie I'd want to protect a kid from. Thing is, "Harry Potter" IS a children's movie.
Did you even read the article? No, who the hell am I kidding? You're an AC.
They aren't selling edited videos. You have to buy the video and take it to them to have it edited. They only edit copies already purchased.
So, in order to get your sanitized version of "Where The Boys Aren't #27" or "Fisting Firemen #10" you need to go out and buy a regular copy and then have it edited. And the problem here is what? If these companies bought one copy, edited it and then sold copies as original purchases I'd have an issue with it. But making it possible for the ultra-squeemish to enjoy sanitized versions of their favorite films isn't a problem in my book. It's no different, IMHO, than taking a marker and blotting out the words you find offensive in your copy of "Huckleberry Finn".
Fuck Jack Velanti. Fuck him right in the ear! Why the hell shouldn't I be able to record what I watch on TV?
It's enough to make you give up TV and stick to books. At least with books you can read it as often as you like!
You're right. We shouldn't stalk them. We should impale them on stakes outside the gates of their cities.
Sanatize? No. But a parent should not have to worry about objectional content coming in, unwanted and unrequested, into their children's email. It's not like these kids went surfing to hotsloppysluts.com, they just opened their email.
Yes, parents SHOULD supervise their kids surfing habbits, but they shiouldn't have to moniter their email as well! 9
And shit, I don't want ads for craptastic porn stolen from giffgirls, or penis enlargers, or hot sloppy russian sluts and all other sorts of fouls crap in my mailbox! If I want buy a spleen enlarger I'll go searching for one!
You have the right to say what you will, save for screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, discussing means of killing the President, talking about hijacking an airplane while in an airport, publishing child pornography, etc... BUT I have the right to NOT listen to you. I have the right to ignore you if I don't like what you are saying. And I will use whatever tools I have to enforce that right legally.
Like I gove a rat's shit encrusted rectum what a spammer's costs are. They can all rot in Hell.
It doesn't matter if he profitted from DeCSS or not. That is completely irrelevent in copyright law. The point is whether or not he violated any copyrights or otherwise violated the DMCA (which is a violation of our basic rights, but that's another argument). Making no money will not make him less guilty than making billions of dollars.
You can know dog shit stinks without stepping in it.
You need to get out more...
Or play with the fireworks in the house with wall to wall rugs? That's always fun!
Can you read your iPAQ when the battery is dead? I can't. And as good as my iPAQ is for some things, that screen is just too damned small for reading.
I much prefer books. You can annotate the hell out of them. Books don't crash. Books don't have issues with "alternate" operating systems. Books aren't subject to the whims of some funky piece of software that might just decide to stop working.
And most importantly, when was the last time you replaced the missing leg on that old couch with an iPAQ?
And they make music to pay the bills and put food on the table. If someone chooses to make a living making a product or doing a service, they have every right to expect payment for that product (physical or not) or service.
It's great that you gove your work away. Obviously you don't feed yourself with it.
I've been a Nielson houshold three years running. What have they found? That I watch an average of five hours oif TV a week, and that my wife watches about an hour or so more a week. Even though the point of the Nielson system is to set advertising rates, it's nice to know that I did my part in trying to keep Reboot! on the air.
Considering that ripping a CD for personal use is not a copyright violation (at least not yet), your argument is without merrit. We're not talking about biological weapons or other tools that have only one possible application here. If CDeX ripped your CD and automaticall uploaded it all to a central music depository you MIGHT have an argument.
Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. I use it to ripp my CDs onto my (internal LAN) server so I can listen to the CDs I bought (and still have posession thereof) without hauling my CD collection all over the house. I have never given away a single song I ever ripped.
And just because a tool CAN be used to violate a law, does not make it a violation to have or use it. I can use a crowbar to break into your house, or even to kill you with. Does that make me owning a crowbar illegal? What if I use my crowbar only for legal purposes - ripping out the boards in my house, or prying rocks loose? Is it still illegal?
Get a grip, son. It's the manner in which the tool is used, not the tool itself that makes it a violation of the law or not (unless some asshat DMCAesque law says otherwise).
UI used to run The Wage of Sim, a "The Sims" page that consumed 2.8GB of bandwidth every day. It cost me $400.00 a month to host. I tried to get banner ads on my site. No dice. You'd think with a site getting several thousand unique visitors a day I might get some interest. Nope. No one outside of the porn industry wanted to touch me for some reason. And I was not willing to run porn ads. I tried donations, but I never got more than $100.00 in any particular month, ever.
Rather than submit to porn or popups, I closed my site. It was a nice hobby while it lasted, and I'm not happy that I had to close the site.
There are times you have to ask yourself if the pain of doing something is worth the return.
Considering how much AOL charges, it amazes me that they need pop-up/pop-under ad revenue to stay afloat. Like all non-profitable business ventures, they should die.
Bullshit. Where is the data that pop-ups work? The best they do is create false positive page views by loading pages you didn't request. I have never purchased ANYTHING from a popup, nor ever visited a site pointed my way via a pop-up, and neither do most people.
Pop-ups, like SPAM, are evil and do little more than piss people off.
Call me when they have running silicon. Until then it's just more smoke and mirrors.